On July 26 2012 05:28 coverpunch wrote: But I'm very scared because the federal government and certainly the California state govenrment over the last decade have shown very little reason to have faith they can ever do that.
Ah, here's the rub.
Why do you think that is?
If you say "it is because government is incompetent, as part of its essence," I will think this response facile. The government is an organization, and is fundamentally no different than other human organizations, which are clearly not universally incompetent. It must be some factor, beyond its mere governmentality, which causes this incompetence.
What is it?
1) Government often operates in areas of society where there is no rational framework for measuring competence. 2) Government has the ability to force people to engage in endeavors that are against their best interest. 3) Government can structure itself so that there is no clear line of accountability.
On July 25 2012 10:09 Defacer wrote: Hey xDaunt, this one's for you. It's a interesting quote that points out the obvious weakness in Romney's economic policy.
"Romney does not have a plan to fix the short term crisis, in the sense that he’d be proposing exactly the same things if the economy were doing great. But the politics of the presidential race are such that Romney needs to promise that electing him would fix the crisis. To make this case, he has to sell the American people on the idea that government — and Obama’s hostility towards individual initiative and American free enterprise — are to blame for holding back the recovery, and that shoving both of those things “out of the way” will reignite the economy. That’s why Romney continues to falsely claim that stimulus spending only succeeded in growing government and didn’t help the private sector at all. That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama “demeans success.” That’s why he continues to falsely claim that Obama thinks only government, and not individual initiative, creates jobs — and that this is why you’re suffering. These ideas are essential to Romney’s entire argument. Without them, he doesn’t have one," - Greg Sargent.
Going to be a fun election this year!
Sure, I'd love to see Romney flesh out his economic plan more, and lots conservatives have called upon Romney to do just that. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Romney would be a better steward of the economy (if for no other reason than he is neither a democrat nor Obama), and polls are showing that my opinion is in the majority on the point.
As for the rest of the quote, let's just say that I disagree with Sargent and fall into Krauthammer's camp as I mentioned in a previous post.
At a minimum, it looks like democrats, liberals, and the Obama campaign have finally figured out how badly Obama fucked up with that Roanoke speech. The root problem is that, regardless of what Obama actually believes, Obama has enough of the stink of being anti-enterprise that his speech has done nothing but confirm the suspicions (or fears, if you will) of many Americans.
I don't think he is anti-enterprise. I believe his point was that businesses don't need to hire guards to keep their businesses safe like they used to due to police and the military. They don't need to treat their sewage and find their own water sources or their own power generation or lay their own roads. While they are good business people, these people did not do it 100% on their own like people try to pretend. All the things I listed significantly decrease the cost of business operations and aren't things that magically fall from the sky. There's nothing wrong with reminding businesses of that.
You're liberal, so you don't see him as being anti-enterprise and you are viewing his statements from a different, friendlier perspective than many (if not most) Americans. Consider how someone with a different perspective would take his comments. Many people see Obama's rhetoric as being divisive. In particular, they see Obama playing the class warfare game and going out of his way to demonize "the rich." They also see Obama promote many policies that harm businesses, whether it be enacting new regulations (Obamacare certainly hurts him here) or obstructing obviously beneficial projects (like the Keystone XL pipeline). Consider all of the other people who look at Obama's past and see a slew of leftist radicals with whom Obama has been closely affiliated at one point or another during his life. How do you think all of these people take Obama's comments? Hell, just compare what Obama said to what other presidents have said (go look at the new Scott Brown ad).
When you consider all of the above, it becomes very obvious why Obama's comments have damaged him so badly. I guarantee you that a majority of independents aren't reacting well to what Obama said.
You've done a rather poor job of tying mainstream Republican thought with your own, so I'm inclined to simply shake my head every time you use words and phrases like "many (if not most) Americans", "They", and "all of these people". Your source material is and has been summarily extremely activist right-wing, and if you want anyone to follow your logic and accept your collective declarations, some sort of centrist evidence would be nice. Because otherwise I can't help but feel as though you are simply putting words and ideas in peoples mouths and heads.
For example, you clam that many consider Obama's rhetoric divisive. Do you not accept that many people also consider the entirety of the Republican platform as one which lives and dies on tactics of division? Mitch McConnell even says as much.
Like I have said many, many times in this thread, all I'm trying to do is explain why what Obama said is damaging to his campaign. For whatever a reason, a majority of you simply refuse to accept that Obama's Roanoke speech was incredibly stupid and harmful, despite the fact that the Obama campaign has finally figured out Obama stepped in it and is now actively doing damage control. If you really want to put your head in the sand and simply dismiss me as a "right-wing extremist," go ahead. Like I have said before, I'm all for democrats and liberals not figuring out what their weaknesses are.
You are trying to paint the speech as "stupid and harmful" by itself. It wasn't. The only reason why some of Obama's comments could be damaging to him is that his opponents actively took them out of context. That's the only reason.
The entirity of that section of the speech implies that infrastructure deserves just as much, if not more, credit for a successful business than the sacrifices and work of the people who built it.
The speech is a reply to the idea that the smaller the government is, the better it is for individuals. This is an idea that a lot of right-wing politicians have tried to convey for quite some time now. Obama is saying that society and government provide plenty of services that are essential in helping individual initiative happen and succeed, and that the idea that the smaller the government is the better individuals strive is therefore false.
On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote: "I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."
This implies it was primarily luck that chose the people who succeeded in their businesses. My parents in particular found this the most insulting part of the speech. My mother and father put all of their net worth up for collateral for a business loan to get started. They then proceeded to work nearly every day of the week for the next year without drawing a regular paycheck, the employees, bills, and inventory had to come first. Our family got enough to pay the bills and eat, that's about it. This comment is incredibly demeaning to people who have gone through this (which is, surprise surprise, the overwhelming majority of small business owners).
This statement does not imply in any way that luck was the most important factor. Nowhere does Obama say that - he's not talking about luck, not even remotely. What he is saying is that there are many hardworking people, and that being hardworking is not the only relevant variable. He's certainly not saying it's not an important variable, he's saying it's not the only variable. If it was, every hardworking American would be a high earner, and we both know that's not the case.
On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Again, this is saying that infrastructure (which is nearly constant for all business owners so it actually has almost no baring on who survives and who doesn't) and education had more to do with the success than working 60-70 hours a week for the first year (sometimes years!) after putting up everything you own to try to start your business. Funny thing that the unbelievable American system is built on the idea of self-reliance and government staying out of individual's lives; the exact opposite of what he's talking about here!
Where the hell do you get that "more important" from? He's saying hard work did not happen in a societal and individual vacuum - he's not trying to quantify what's more important. That the American government is not all-encompassing does not change the fact that, exactly like he said, it is still responsible for building roads, bridges, infrastructure, providing countless citizens with an education, with police protection, etc. etc., all of which (or at least some of which) contributed to enabling and helping the individual initiative of Americans like your parents. Nowhere is he trying to downplay the importance of individual initiative, hard work, etc. He is simply responding to the downplaying of the other factors that do play a role, a downplaying that has notably been the work of right-wing politicians.
On July 26 2012 01:17 Budmandude wrote: I don't see how this is out of context, I don't see how you can say it's not harmful. It was a very stupid comment to make off-the-cuff and plays to his class warfare bullshit he's been peddling recently. Even if you take the "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" line alone it still encapsulates what his whole statement was getting at; the contributions of society and luck were more impactful on your business than your hard work.
I love how you manage to both assert that his statements were not taken out of context AND take one of his lines completely out of context in the very same paragraph. The "you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" did NOT refer to the "If you've got a business" proposition but to the "roads and bridges" that were mentioned in the sentence directly preceding the one you quoted. Way to go.
On July 26 2012 05:28 coverpunch wrote: But I'm very scared because the federal government and certainly the California state govenrment over the last decade have shown very little reason to have faith they can ever do that.
Ah, here's the rub.
Why do you think that is?
If you say "it is because government is incompetent, as part of its essence," I will think this response facile. The government is an organization, and is fundamentally no different than other human organizations, which are clearly not universally incompetent. It must be some factor, beyond its mere governmentality, which causes this incompetence.
What is it?
I don't think government is inherently incompetent or evil, although I do think Lord Acton's aphorism "power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is true.
Ok, maybe, but "absolute lack of power leads to nothing useful getting done," you can quote me on that one. Lord Drumm's aphorism.
It seems noncontroversial that the government should have some power, and that it should use that power well.
The problem with big government is twofold. First, it involves the use of force, either implicitly or explicitly.
Government is more or less defined as the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Nothing to do with the "size" of government.
I'm skeptical of government spending but if you want the government to spend, it must first collect money from me. It must take resources away from me.
State of nature fallacy. There's no primal state in which you exist, all by yourself, with all of your money, happily doing your entirely own thing.
The US is sophisticated and mature enough to do this from a distance with bureaucrats from the IRS rather than hiring a couple thugs to beat me up, but it's force nonetheless.
Sure, I don't really like income tax. I would prefer to see the government nationalize all natural resources, for example, and derive some revenue from the sustainable exploitation of these. Also a very high estate tax, carbon tax, so on and so on. And labor power provided by universal civil service (which also promotes civic identity and cross-class interactions). This is obviously not a complete plan, but just to point out that income tax is not the only way to generate revenue (or non-financial resources, like labor, which can be used by gov't).
Ideally, I would like to see global sovereignty with most administration being done at the municipal level; I don't think governing a geopolitical entity like the US at the national level is very efficient. Government is less efficient the less local it is.
Anyway, the point about force doesn't really mean anything, due to the nature of government (see above).
Similarly, if you're offering "free K-12 education", that's also a measure of implicit force because it means people can't choose to quit school if they want. In many of the controversial big government scenarios, the ultimate answer comes down to "I know what's good for you better than you do, so you don't get to choose".
I think people should be allowed to quit school if they want, but I don't think they should get to vote if they do. Free higher education should be available to everyone who wants to put in the effort (and we should fail a lot more people out of the university system, raise standards to make it not an entirely pro-forma experience... make kids really study if we are going to pay for them to do it)
I maintain that it is the right (and responsibility) of a society to set certain standards about how that society is going to be run. The opposite stance is incoherent.
I think there is absolutely a role for the government in our society. It must protect our rights and provide courts of law to arbitrate disputes between citizens, for example. But how far does "protecting my rights" go in terms of taking away choices from me?
I think "choices" are held to be much more sacred in liberal political philosophy than is really philosophically sound. If you lived in that magical state of nature (funny how liberals says utopia is an impossible dream but the state of nature is a really real thing) then maybe it would be all about "choice," but you don't, so it's not.
That being said, I think in Utopia you will have a lot of choices about what sort of society you want to live in, and will be very mobile in your ability to move between them. So if you don't like the city you live in, with its particular culture, then you can move to another one with a different one. Everybody gets to pick what sort of a world they live in (this is why I think that US social politics are a big distraction... while it's obviously stupid not to let gay people get married, that's a thing which communities should decide, and the US as a whole is not a community).
The global sovereign, of course, would have to regulate matters pertaining to the globe, e.g. environmental problems.
On July 26 2012 05:28 coverpunch wrote: But I'm very scared because the federal government and certainly the California state govenrment over the last decade have shown very little reason to have faith they can ever do that.
Ah, here's the rub.
Why do you think that is?
If you say "it is because government is incompetent, as part of its essence," I will think this response facile. The government is an organization, and is fundamentally no different than other human organizations, which are clearly not universally incompetent. It must be some factor, beyond its mere governmentality, which causes this incompetence.
What is it?
1) Government often operates in areas of society where there is no rational framework for measuring competence. 2) Government has the ability to force people to engage in endeavors that are against their best interest. 3) Government can structure itself so that there is no clear line of accountability.
Yes, but constitutive of government qua government, or of a certain form of government? that's the only interesting question.
edit: we should also note, apropos of (2), that people are not rational actors and do not always know what is in their best interest. n.b. this does not immediately imply that the gov't should determine this for them, so please don't take me as saying that.
On July 26 2012 05:28 coverpunch wrote: But I'm very scared because the federal government and certainly the California state govenrment over the last decade have shown very little reason to have faith they can ever do that.
Ah, here's the rub.
Why do you think that is?
If you say "it is because government is incompetent, as part of its essence," I will think this response facile. The government is an organization, and is fundamentally no different than other human organizations, which are clearly not universally incompetent. It must be some factor, beyond its mere governmentality, which causes this incompetence.
What is it?
1) Government often operates in areas of society where there is no rational framework for measuring competence. 2) Government has the ability to force people to engage in endeavors that are against their best interest. 3) Government can structure itself so that there is no clear line of accountability.
Yes, but constitutive of government qua government, or of a certain form of government? that's the only interesting question.
edit: we should also note, apropos of (2), that people are not rational actors and do not always know what is in their best interest. n.b. this does not immediately imply that the gov't should determine this for them, so please don't take me as saying that.
Honestly, I'd say these are mostly general human problems that exist in the government just as they do in other entities. Humans are, in general, rational short-term actors. When it comes to the long-term, the rationality assumption starts to fall apart.
On July 24 2012 01:16 kwizach wrote: [quote] The politifact article that you cited does not really back up the claim that "discrimination [is] widely overplayed". It explains why the "77 cents per dollar earned" figure is problematic/wrong in how it's being used, but it does not provide a number that would indicate how far or close it is to the actual figure, all it does is say the "pay gap is much smaller", without providing sources, and relying on a few examples that range from a relatively small but still existing gap (95 cents per dollar earned) to a very important gap (58 cents per dollar earned). That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic, and the fact is that an existing wage difference is still problematic even for the professions for which the average wage of women is 5% below the average wage of men. Wage discrimination is therefore not "widely overplayed" - if anything, it is underplayed by those seeking to repeal legislation giving legal instruments to women to defend themselves.
The article from politifact points out that the numbers being thrown around aren't adjusted for things like hours worked or length of tenure or ability. Basically the figures are NOT like for like. Not all 9th grade teachers get paid the same - for reasons beyond gender. Some teachers are part time, some full time. Some work in dangerous urban cities, other work in safe suburban communities. Pay can be different for many, many reasons.
I read the article, what's your point?
It is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause. If a salesperson on commission brings in half the business then that sales person should get half the pay - regardless of gender.
So your statements such as "That there are entire professions for which the average wage of women is 42% below the average wage of men is extremely problematic" are entirely crap. There may very well be NOTHING discriminatory going on.
I know very well it is not discriminatory to pay someone less for cause (as in, a cause that would not be gender-related). What the article does is point out factors that make it harder to determine to what degree gender discrimination plays a role in wage differences. It does not say gender discrimination is not very common. In fact, the authors expressively wrote at the end of the article that "nothing in our analysis suggests that gender discrimination doesn’t exist. In fact, the experts we consulted agreed that no matter how much you adjust the models to equalize for outside factors, a difference in pay between men and women remains, and it’s one that can’t be explained away". In addition, if you had taken a look at the fact sheet from which the statistics used in the politifact article come from, you would have seen that women earn less than men in almost every single occupation, including the occupations that are most common for women. The idea that this would be entirely explained for every single occupation by the outside factors aforementioned, especially in the cases where the wage difference is as high as 42%, is laughable.
That 42% wage difference was for financial planners - a commission/bonus based job.
You really can't show discrimination at a national level. There's just too many different factors involved. Women might choose a job as a financial planner that pays mostly on salary (+bonus) while men might choose financial planner jobs that pay mostly (or only) commission - and get paid more for it.
If the 42% difference was at all valid it would make for an extremely easy lawsuit.
Again, you need to read the article better. The authors explicitly state that the different non-gender discrimination factors they found that could have an influence on wage difference did not suffice to explain the wage differences. Gender discrimination was clearly still at play. In the case of the 42% difference example, nobody's saying the entire 42% difference is explained by gender discrimination, but rather that the outside factors are unlikely to explain the entire difference by themselves. Forget that example if you want and focus on the broader picture, in which almost every single occupation sees higher pay for men.
Yes but other factors that they did not, or could not, look into can still exist. Most likely the authors used easy to get data from the BLS and census bureau which isn't detailed enough for a real apples to apples comparison.
So your argument is essentially "I have no facts or evidence whatsoever to stand on, but I choose to believe outside factors suffice to explain the wage differences between women and men rather than gender discrimination"?
My argument is that a national 'wage gap' is a completely meaningless metric. You can really only show discrimination at an organization or individual level. There are too many variables otherwise.
Researchers have recalculated earnings differences between the sexes taking all this [hours worked, education, experience, etc.], as well as things like parental status and number of children, into account. When they do, they find that women make between 93 and 95 cents for every dollar earned by men — a difference worth noting but one that doesn’t make for effective political warfare.
Does discrimination account for the remaining 7 cent gap? It probably explains some of it. But there could be other differences between male and female workers that we can’t measure.
Consider this example. Female pediatricians earn less than male — even while controlling for many of the factors we’ve seen. But several studies show that discrimination may not account for the rest of the gap.
Men are more focused on career advancement, income and long-term earning potential, according to a 2006 AMA Survey of Physicians, while women were more interested in scheduling flexibility.
Female physicians work fewer hours overall, other AMA data indicate, and see fewer patients than their male counterparts. Women doctors are also considerably less likely to own a group practice.
What’s suggested here is that even if we could end all discrimination, the bulk of the gender gap would remain.
The article you quoted mentions the same variables/outside factors that were already taken into account in the politifact article when its authors asserted that a difference in pay between men and women that can't be explained no matter how you adjust the models to take into account outside non-gender discrimination factors. Does it automatically mean that gender discrimination is responsible for the entirety of the difference? Not necessarily, no. But you're kidding yourself if you believe that gender discrimination does not play a role in the existence of the gap - countless studies point in that direction (you'll find plenty of them referenced on wikipedia alone). A study I read a while ago comes to mind (I can't remember where I read it) - the exact same CVs were sent to companies, some with the name of a man and some with the name of a woman on it. It turns out that despite the CVs being exactly the same gender put aside, the "man" was more likely to be hired than the "woman". Of course, this concerns hiring rather than salary, but it is nevertheless telling in terms of how some people see the value of a woman's work compared to a male counterpart. Regarding your article, I'd like to add that they don't actually provide a source for the "women make between 93 and 95 cents for every dollar earned by men". Those are averages (the discrepancies can be higher depending on the profession, as we've seen) that differ depending on the studies you're looking at. The bottom line is that gender discrimination does happen, and that the tools women have at their disposal to fight such discrimination should not be taken away from them.
On July 26 2012 05:28 coverpunch wrote: But I'm very scared because the federal government and certainly the California state govenrment over the last decade have shown very little reason to have faith they can ever do that.
Ah, here's the rub.
Why do you think that is?
If you say "it is because government is incompetent, as part of its essence," I will think this response facile. The government is an organization, and is fundamentally no different than other human organizations, which are clearly not universally incompetent. It must be some factor, beyond its mere governmentality, which causes this incompetence.
What is it?
1) Government often operates in areas of society where there is no rational framework for measuring competence. 2) Government has the ability to force people to engage in endeavors that are against their best interest. 3) Government can structure itself so that there is no clear line of accountability.
Yes, but constitutive of government qua government, or of a certain form of government? that's the only interesting question.
edit: we should also note, apropos of (2), that people are not rational actors and do not always know what is in their best interest. n.b. this does not immediately imply that the gov't should determine this for them, so please don't take me as saying that.
Honestly, I'd say these are mostly general human problems that exist in the government just as they do in other entities. Humans are, in general, rational short-term actors. When it comes to the long-term, the rationality assumption starts to fall apart.
Precisely. I would say that it is the job of people to think about the short term, and the job of government to think about the long term. The problem with mass democracy is that the two get conflated, and short-term thinking dominates long-term considerations to the detriment of the polity.
I'm skeptical of government spending but if you want the government to spend, it must first collect money from me. It must take resources away from me.
State of nature fallacy. There's no primal state in which you exist, all by yourself, with all of your money, happily doing your entirely own thing.
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
You were more correct when you posed the question with the government simply being the organization that is given the power to make collective decisions for society.
Although I will say that you make a good point that force isn't necessarily proportional to the size of government. You can have a small government that does all kinds of terrible things and a big government that is benign and neglects to exercise its full force.
There isn't a primal state in which I exist by myself but the taxes that I pay go to much more than just the maintenance of the portion of society in which I live. This goes back to the question of prudent spending. I've had outstanding teachers in my life but I've also had really crappy teachers. They got paid on the same unionized schedule that all teachers get paid. My taxes help pay for the gallant soldiers who defend my freedoms and keep bad guys out of America. But they also paid for Abu Ghraib and continue to pay to indefinitely detain prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
On July 26 2012 06:37 Epocalypse wrote: Here are some good points made by Diane Macedo about Obama's speech.
No, she does not make some good points, because she apparently doesn't understand what Obama's "you didn't build that" phrase referred to. Have you been following this discussion at all?
The problem with big government is twofold. First, it involves the use of force, either implicitly or explicitly.
Government is more or less defined as the entity that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Nothing to do with the "size" of government.
I'm skeptical of government spending but if you want the government to spend, it must first collect money from me. It must take resources away from me.
State of nature fallacy. There's no primal state in which you exist, all by yourself, with all of your money, happily doing your entirely own thing.
I think this is just a fundamental difference of political philosophy. The government definitely does not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Hence the 2nd Amendment. Hence the right to kill in self-defense.
Hmm... I don't think my definition here is controversial but perhaps I'm wrong. I don't think 2nd amendment conflicts with this but I would have to consider this tension more carefully and I don't have any answer. Anybody have thoughts?
You were more correct when you posed the question with the government simply being the organization that is given the power to make collective decisions for society.
Cool so let's accept this.
Although I will say that you make a good point that force isn't necessarily proportional to the size of government. You can have a small government that does all kinds of terrible things and a big government that is benign and neglects to exercise its full force.
daodejing 17 "very great leaders":
"Very great leaders in their domains are only known to exist. Those next best are beloved and praised. The lesser are feared and despised. Therefore when faith is insufficient and there is disbelief, it is from the high value placed on words. Works are accomplished, tasks are completed and ordinary folks all say they are acting spontaneously." (trans. Cleary).
The goal is wuwei, "effortless action." Action without the appearance of action.
The good government sets things up so that people moving "spontaneously" within this structure live happy, fulfilling, and prosperous lives.
Conservatives are right when they say that bureaucracy impedes the natural flow of things, they are wrong when they say that this implies that there should be no structure within which things flow.
It is like what my theater teacher told me back in high school: you've done a good job designing the lighting for your set when nobody notices that the set is being lighted."
There isn't a primal state in which I exist by myself but the taxes that I pay go to much more than just the maintenance of the portion of society in which I live.
In the global era, this distinction seems false to me. It's all one system. Transnational capital (i.e. imperialism) has seen to that.
This goes back to the question of prudent spending. I've had outstanding teachers in my life but I've also had really crappy teachers. They got paid on the same unionized schedule that all teachers get paid. My taxes help pay for the gallant soldiers who defend my freedoms and keep bad guys out of America. But they also paid for Abu Ghraib and continue to pay to indefinitely detain prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
I don't think anybody disagrees with this. The true thing we should be looking for in government is elegance... "size" is a red herring.
On July 26 2012 07:19 coverpunch wrote: Ok, let's apply it. What are your thoughts on Obama's presidency so far and the potential for Romney to do better?
Oh, I don't know. American politics is so fucked from square one I don't bother to follow it - it's all just memes and illusions and the most vulgar of populisms. I'm more interested in thinking about what we're going to build once the whole thing collapses, which seems inevitable to me at this point (and so an analysis of the problems of our political order is a good starting place). I don't think it makes any real world-historical difference who wins the election - I'm going to vote for a 3rd party as a protest of the fact that (1) I don't live in a swing state, so I'm disenfranchised and (2) there's no major-party candidate that represents my interests, even a little bit.
I guess I would say that I think Obama squandered the opportunity to make some real difference, but that it's not really his fault in particular. There's no political will in this country to do much of anything at all. America is dying.
edit: I'll say I would far rather Obama win than Romney, but I won't vote for him because my state will already go Blue and I don't want my vote to be seen as endorsing the sort of false choice that is offered to american voters as "political participation."
edit: but insofar as I think a Romney presidency might actually bring things to a crisis more quickly, that might not be so bad.
On July 26 2012 05:28 coverpunch wrote: But I'm very scared because the federal government and certainly the California state govenrment over the last decade have shown very little reason to have faith they can ever do that.
Ah, here's the rub.
Why do you think that is?
If you say "it is because government is incompetent, as part of its essence," I will think this response facile. The government is an organization, and is fundamentally no different than other human organizations, which are clearly not universally incompetent. It must be some factor, beyond its mere governmentality, which causes this incompetence.
What is it?
1) Government often operates in areas of society where there is no rational framework for measuring competence. 2) Government has the ability to force people to engage in endeavors that are against their best interest. 3) Government can structure itself so that there is no clear line of accountability.
Yes, but constitutive of government qua government, or of a certain form of government? that's the only interesting question.
edit: we should also note, apropos of (2), that people are not rational actors and do not always know what is in their best interest. n.b. this does not immediately imply that the gov't should determine this for them, so please don't take me as saying that.
People are not always rational, nor do they always do what is in their best interest. However, that isn't unique to government. Government can force you accept what isn't in your best interest whereas other organizations don't have that option.
And yes, I think all three items I listed apply to all forms of government.
On July 26 2012 05:28 coverpunch wrote: But I'm very scared because the federal government and certainly the California state govenrment over the last decade have shown very little reason to have faith they can ever do that.
Ah, here's the rub.
Why do you think that is?
If you say "it is because government is incompetent, as part of its essence," I will think this response facile. The government is an organization, and is fundamentally no different than other human organizations, which are clearly not universally incompetent. It must be some factor, beyond its mere governmentality, which causes this incompetence.
What is it?
1) Government often operates in areas of society where there is no rational framework for measuring competence. 2) Government has the ability to force people to engage in endeavors that are against their best interest. 3) Government can structure itself so that there is no clear line of accountability.
Yes, but constitutive of government qua government, or of a certain form of government? that's the only interesting question.
edit: we should also note, apropos of (2), that people are not rational actors and do not always know what is in their best interest. n.b. this does not immediately imply that the gov't should determine this for them, so please don't take me as saying that.
People are not always rational, nor do they always do what is in their best interest. However, that isn't unique to government. Government can force you accept what isn't in your best interest whereas other organizations don't have that option.
And yes, I think all three items I listed apply to all forms of government.
But not to other forms of human organization? For example, corporations? Why?
edit: to be sure, your claims are all hedged anyway. "Government often" "government has the ability" "government can." So let's make a government that never, won't, and doesn't, respectively.
On July 26 2012 06:37 Epocalypse wrote: Here are some good points made by Diane Macedo about Obama's speech.
No, she does not make some good points, because she apparently doesn't understand what Obama's "you didn't build that" phrase referred to. Have you been following this discussion at all?
Leave him alone, he's just an Austrian economist that live in his own bubble. Everytime someone gives him a valid counterargument, he ignores it and proceed to repeat the same thing over and over.
On July 26 2012 06:37 Epocalypse wrote: Here are some good points made by Diane Macedo about Obama's speech.
No, she does not make some good points, because she apparently doesn't understand what Obama's "you didn't build that" phrase referred to. Have you been following this discussion at all?
Leave him alone, he's just an Austrian economist that live in his own bubble. Everytime someone gives him a valid counterargument, he ignores it and proceed to repeat the same thing over and over.
Don't forget about the youtube videos! He wouldn't be an Austrian economist without posting hundreds of "educational" youtube videos every day.
EPT
